LIMITED ATONEMENT SCRIPTURALLY REFUTED
If Christ died for the elect only, why does the apostle Paul tell Timothy:
There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all. ... (1 Timothy 2:5-6, emphasis added)
Evidently, John Owen could not see how this apostolic affirmation contradicts the doctrine of a limited atonement and his own words when he says, “The Scripture nowhere says Christ died for all men.”278 Should this read, “a ransom for all the elect men”? Commenting on this very verse, MacArthur says: Not all will be ransomed . only the many . for whom the actual atonement was made. the substitutionary aspect of His death is applied to the elect alone.279
MacArthur’s words have confused some (on both sides of the Calvinist controversy) and have left them scratching their heads. MacArthur believes that the atonement was only made for the elect and not made for the reprobate. For MacArthur, however, Christ died for everyone in a non-redeeming sense and with no interest or intention of redeeming many for whom He died. Some of those for whom He died, He actually died to save. He refers to this as “the substitutionary aspect of His death.” Take “the substitutionary aspect” out of the cross of Christ for many people, as MacArthur does, and you make the cross of Christ of no redeeming value or saving benefit to them. This is what Calvinism requires. For these individuals, Christ did not savingly die. To them, He is just another martyr who died a death of no lasting consequence.
It is true that “not all will be ransomed.” Only the Universalist would say otherwise. Did, however, Jesus really give “Himself a ransom for all,” as Paul says, or did He not, as MacArthur suggests? Only those men and women who believe will receive the saving benefits of what Christ did on the cross. No one is disputing this. The question then is not will all be ransomed? Rather, was the ransom paid for all? The Calvinist always answers this question incorrectly. The doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement make sure that he does. Again, notice that the text does not say all were ransomed, and only the Universalist would say it does. It does, however, say, “Christ Jesus ... gave Himself a ransom for all.” There is simply no reason to say that Christ did not give Himself as a ransom for all just because not all will be ransomed, unless, of course, you are trying to make scriptural truth conform to Calvinist dogma.
MacArthur often uses the term “believer” in the same way other Calvinists use the word “elect.” He means, however, exactly what they mean. While all Evangelicals would agree that only believers will be ransomed, MacArthur, like all Calvinists, would argue that only those who are elect can believe. My guess is that many with a longer association with Reformed doctrine will not like the way MacArthur tries to make both camps happy, and may not even accept that he really believes in the third point of Calvinism (limited atonement). On the other side of the Calvinist divide, I suspect that he has found a way, in the minds of some, to bridge the gap between limited and unlimited atonement. Regardless of MacArthur’s intentions, or what he believes he has done, he does not believe that Christ did anything on the cross that could be considered redemptive in any ultimate sense for much, if not most, of mankind.
God did not love some in the world enough to send Christ to savingly die for them or give them the faith to believe in the one who died, according to MacArthur in particular and the greater Reformed community in general. With 1 John 2:2 in mind, MacArthur says our Lord’s ...
... sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. But the actual satisfaction and atonement was made only for those who believe.280 The key to understanding what MacArthur is saying is to be found in the words “sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith” To the contrary, the apostle John says that Jesus ...
... is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2, NIV) Concerning the words “not only for ours,” Calvin said that John:
... Added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.281 Calvin immediately added:
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages [foolishnesses] of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate. ... Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though . I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.282 So now we know that a word (i.e., world) that is often used in Scripture as almost antithetical to the word “church” is really a synonym for the word “church.” The whole world is the whole church, or perhaps the whole church world. It is a good thing we have Calvin to tell us this, otherwise we may never have noticed. According to Calvinism, it would also have been theologically correct had the apostle John said that Christ died, also for the sins of the whole world of the elect. Regarding those Scriptures that tell us that Christ died for the whole world, MacArthur says: This is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general. . The passages which speak of Christ’s dying for the whole world must be understood to refer to mankind in general (as in Titus 2:11). “World” indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation.283
It only must mean what MacArthur says it means if Calvinism is assumed to be true. Are you buying this? If you are, you are able to pay more of what Feinberg calls an intellectual price tag than I can afford, or more importantly, than I think Scripture requires. That is, however, the price Calvinism demands. With this passage in mind, Gill says:
Now let it be observed, that these phrases, all the world, and the whole world, are often in scripture to be taken in a limited sense . in this epistle of John, the phrase is used in a restrained sense ... in the text under consideration, it cannot be understood of all men ... what may be observed and will lead more clearly into the sense of the passage before us, is, that the apostle John was a Jew, and wrote to Jews: and in the text speaks of them, and of the Gentiles, as to be distinguished; and therefore says of Christ, he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, for the sins of us Jews only; but for the sins of the whole world; of the Gentiles also, of all the elect of God throughout the Gentile world.284
It cannot mean what it seems to mean only if we assume Calvinism is true, as Gill obviously does. Those of us who do not assume Calvinism to be true, are free to interpret the words “whole world” in a less strained sense. The Calvinist believes he can see beneath the plain meaning of Scripture and therefore often appeals to the deeper things, the hidden purposes, or the secret counsel of God to justify his reading into a text what is not otherwise evident. Often an imagined context is appealed to, but the result is the same. With reference to the sins of the whole world, as seen in 1 John 2:2, Albert Barnes explains: This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, “the whole world,” is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition.285 Calvinists such as Sproul will admit: On the surface this text seems to demolish limited atonement.286 With a little imagination or insight into the hidden purposes of God, Calvinists can see what non-Calvinist Evangelicals cannot see. Or could this be a case of The Emperor’s New Clothes? If you believe the “whole world” of 1 John 2:2 can be understood as or reduced to the whole church or the whole world of the elect, ask yourself how you discerned this. Did you simply study the text and see this? Or did a Calvinist friend or mentor point it out to you? Did you come to this verse convinced of Calvinism and then unconsciously interpret it from a Calvinist perspective? Without a previous commitment to Calvinism, no one could discern in 1 John 2:2 what is so plain to see for the Calvinist.
If someone were to deny that Christ died for the church (Ephesians 5:25), a Calvinist would go theologically ballistic if they justified it by saying that sometimes the word “church” is used to designate a gathering of ordinary folk. Calvinists would rightly say that if you look at the context, it is clear that most of the time when the word “church” is used in the New Testament, the context requires that we interpret it to mean God’s family of believers, whether local or universal. But why should Calvinists be able to do essentially the same thing with the word “world” just because it does not fit into their theological scheme? Again with 1 John 2:2 in mind, MacArthur says:
God has mitigated His wrath on sinners temporarily, by letting them live and enjoy earthly life (see note on 1 Timothy 4:10). In that sense, Christ has provided a brief, temporal propitiation for the whole world. But He actually satisfied fully the wrath of God eternally only for the elect who believe.287
Since MacArthur references 1 Timothy 4:10, let us consider what this so-called temporal propitiation is in that context as well. Writing to Timothy, Paul says:
We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
MacArthur says: The Gr. word translated “especially” must mean that all men enjoy God’s salvation in some way like those who believe enjoy His salvation. The simple explanation is that God is the Savior of all men, only in a temporal sense, while of believers in an eternal sense.
Paul’s point is that while God graciously delivers believers from sin’s condemnation and penalty because He was their substitute (2 Corinthians 5:21), all men experience some earthly benefits from the goodness of God.288
I am not arguing that this is not a simple explanation. Not every simple explanation is, however, the right explanation. MacArthur’s use of the word “must” is telling. This answer must be the right answer only if we buy into the whole Calvinist scheme of things. Why does MacArthur avoid the common Calvinist answer, which says the “whole world” means “some” of the world, or the church, or the elect—specifically when it refers to the saving purpose and provision of God? Why, in almost every text in which the words, “all,” “everyone,” the “whole world,” etc., appear, does MacArthur suggest the relative all? Yet in 1 Timothy 4:10, why does he opt for an absolute versus a relative salvation? The reason is simple. The typical Calvinist approach simply does not work and MacArthur knows it. James White provides the more common Reformed explanation of 1 John 2:2 as follows: The Reformed understanding is that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and in all places.289 James Boice explains:
If John, as a Jew, is actually thinking of the propitiatory sacrifice as it was practiced in Israel, particularly on the Day of Atonement— and how could he not?—then it may well be of himself and other Jews as opposed to Gentiles that he uses the word “us” or “we” in this phrase. The contrast would therefore be, not between Christians and the as-yet-unsaved world, but between those Jews for whom Christ died and those Gentiles for whom Christ died, both of whom now make up or eventually will make up the church.290 Now if Christ did not die for everyone, why would the writer to the Hebrews say of Christ that He:
... suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9, NIV, emphasis added) Should this read, “taste death for everyone who is elect”? Referring to this verse, Calvin said: By saying for every man . he means that Christ died for us, and that by taking upon him what was due to us, he redeemed us from the curse of death.291
Thus, Calvin told us what the word “for” refers to. That is, as all Evangelicals would agree, Christ died on the cross for us. It is the word “everyone” that poses a problem for Reformed Theology. While I am not sure that Calvin intended for us to conclude that everyone refers to every elect one, as Calvinism does, his continual use of the word “us” may have provided his followers with the boldness to interpret many of the every/all passages of Scripture as referring to those of us who are elect. MacArthur is unambiguous. He says that the phrase, “taste death for everyone” means:
Everyone who believes, that is.292
How easy it would have been for the writer of this letter to qualify “everyone” by saying that everyone is “everyone who believes.” I think it is safe to assume that the phrase, “taste death for everyone” is what Jesus was referring to when He said God “gave His only begotten Son.” If so, assuming MacArthur is right, we could paraphrase John 3:16 to read: For God so loved the elect of the world that He gave His only begotten Son for the elect, that everyone who believes in Him, which is only and all of the elect, might not perish but have everlasting life. In my representation of Calvinism, I have used this and similar restatements of John 3:16 to illustrate the implications of a Calvinist view of salvation and damnation. I have been seriously rebuked by Calvinists for doing so. Why, however, would Calvinists object to this? I have repeatedly documented that this is exactly what Reformed Theology forces the Calvinist to do. Consider the very telling words of Palmer:
It was because God so loved the world of the elect sinners that He sent His only begotten Son that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:16-17). In this passage, “world” does not mean every single person, reprobate as well as elect, but the whole world in the sense of people from every tribe and nation.293
Why can Palmer restate John 3:16 this way and I can’t? As we found in our consideration of unconditional election, Calvinists dismiss the universality of God’s saving interest in mankind, including the manifestation of His saving work on behalf of the lost, which is the cross of Christ, by replacing the all men and every man passages of Scripture with the words all kinds of men and every kind of man. Steele and Thomas sum up this Calvinist explanation as follows:
One reason for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone. Such phrases as the “the world,” “all men,” “all nations,” and “every creature” were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (i.e., He died for Jews and Gentiles alike) but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (i.e., He did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).294
If eternal and unconditional redemption for the elect and eternal and unconditional damnation for the reprobate does not constitute a distinction, I cannot imagine what would. In fact, it is obvious that if there is an elect caste versus a reprobate caste, a sure-to-be-saved caste versus a certain-to-be-damned caste, that would constitute the greatest and most important distinction imaginable. Moreover, if Christ did not die for those ultimately lost as well as those ultimately saved, who is Peter talking about when he refers to those that were “. denying the Lord who bought them ...” (2 Peter 2:1)? As we will see in a consideration of the fifth point of Calvinism, if Calvinists are right about perseverance, these words cannot refer to backslidden Christians. If Calvinists are right about limited atonement, Christ could not have died for them. If He bought them, what price did He pay for them? If the price He paid was not payment for their salvation, then what was it for? Did Christ pay one price for the elect, by dying as a substitute on the cross for the elect, and another non-redeeming price for the non-elect? MacArthur dismisses what seems to be the rather straightforward meaning of the words “the Lord who bought them” by saying: The terms which Peter used here are more analogical than theological. . they are probably claiming that they were Christians, so that the Lord had bought them actually and personally. With some sarcasm, Peter mocks such a claim by writing of their coming damnation.295
While MacArthur may very well be right (and I happen to believe he is) that these false teachers were not true believers, there is nothing in the text to suggest that they were not really bought by the Lord they were denying. This is another case of reading into a text what it does not say or imply, based upon and necessitated by a Calvinist conviction. Giving this phrase an analogical interpretation provides nothing more than a semantic cover so that a theological interpretation consistent with Calvinism can be imposed upon this text. Besides, Peter does not say that those to whom he refers claim the Lord bought them. He unequivocally says the Lord did buy them.
Therefore, if the Lord did not actually buy them, Peter is wrong. It seems to me that we must choose between the apostle Peter’s teaching and John MacArthur’s Calvinism. I do not see how we can have both. Reading this passage without a Calvinist bias would lead one to believe that the Lord really had bought these false teachers. There is no more reason to believe that the words “who bought them” are any more analogical than the words “denying the Lord” are analogical. Theological convictions aside, there is every reason to believe He really bought them as there is every reason to believe they really did deny Him.
Though he makes no mention of an analogical interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1, Hoeksema agrees with MacArthur’s conclusions. The primary reason for rejecting what seems to be the obvious meaning of this passage is, however, purely theological and not exegetical. That is, Peter could not mean what he actually says if Calvinism is true. With this much I agree. Hoeksema sees in this verse a connection to 1 John 2:19 (KJV). There we read:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
This, however, misses the point of the text. The question is not: were they really Christians? I agree that they were not. The question is: did Christ die for them? Were they, as Peter says, bought by the Lord they were denying? Hoeksema explains: This verse certainly cannot mean that those false teachers were bought by the blood of Christ and that now they fell away from grace.296
Again Hoeksema misses the point. The point is not: did they fall from grace? That assumes they had actually been saved by grace in the first place. The question is: did the Lord buy them? Hoeksema can’t see them falling from grace if Christ died for them, otherwise the atonement would not have automatically saved them, as those who subscribe to a limited atonement believe. Hoeksema cannot see them falling from grace if the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints is true. So Hoeksema has to come up with an alternative to work with Calvinism, even if it contradicts what the text clearly says. So if this verse cannot mean what it seems to mean, what does it mean? Hoeksema says:
It must mean that although formerly and nominally they were reckoned to belong to the church of Christ in the world, they became enemies and denied the atoning blood of Christ.297
That, however, does not address the question as to why Peter said that the Lord bought them. This phrase will simply not go away because it does not fit into one’s theological scheme. Calvin seems to accept what this text is saying. Thus he conceded:
It is no small matter to have the souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ.298 For Calvin, the purchase price paid for those who deny Him and that ultimately perish is the same as the purchase price paid for those of us who are ultimately redeemed. Remember Peter says:
You were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, ... but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19)
Thus, if we can conclude that the purchase price of a soul is Christ on the cross on behalf of that soul, then we must also conclude that Christ died for some that will perish. If there are only two categories of people—those who ultimately perish and those who are (or ultimately will be) saved—then the atonement was an atonement provided for but rejected by the ultimately lost, as well as an atonement provided for and accepted by the ultimately saved.
John Gill proposes another solution to this problem passage for the Calvinist. Gill also disagrees with John Calvin, but for different reasons than does John MacArthur or Herman Hoeksema. Gill agrees with MacArthur and Hoeksema that Christ did not shed His blood for the reprobate or those that ultimately perish, and he agrees with Calvin that some who perish were really bought by the Lord. Gill disagrees with MacArthur, Hoeksema, and Calvin when they say that the price the Lord paid for those who perish was Christ on the cross and His shed blood for the remission of sins. In fact, Gill and White disagree with Calvin and MacArthur that the Lord referenced in 2 Peter 2:1 is Christ the Lord. Although Gill and White do not tell us what kind of purchase price this was or what it was paid for, Gill and White believe this price was paid for those that ultimately will perish. Gill is very clear about who the Lord of this verse is. He explains:
It is concluded that such as are bought by Christ, may be destroyed; but Christ is not here spoken of, but God the Father; and of him the word (despotace—Lord) is always used, when applied to a divine Person, and not of Christ; nor is there anything in this text that obliges us to understand it of him; nor is there here anything said of Christ dying for any persons, in any sense whatever; nor of the redemption of any by his blood; and which is not intended by the word bought: where Christ’s redemption is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned .299 The most common word for Lord in the New Testament, whether speaking of the Son or the Father, is Kurios. Because a different word for Lord is usedin this verse, however, does not mean a different Lord is referred to.
Even if, however, we could speak of the Father as the one who made this purchase, it does not mean that He did not do so with the blood of Christ. Certainly, everyone would agree that the price Christ paid for our sins is in some sense the price the Father paid for our sins as well.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19) The fact that God is triune allows Paul to speak of:
... the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28)
If it was the Father who sent the Son to die on the cross, there was indeed a price the Father paid as well. The very nature of the relationship between the Father and Son suggests that the sacrifice of one is in some sense the sacrifice of the other. None of this even hints of the heresy of patripassianism (confusing the Person of the Father with the Person of the Son; specifically declaring that the Father suffered on the cross with the Son). The only real problem for the Calvinist with this passage is that it does not fit the Calvinist doctrine of a limited atonement. If a person were not already convinced of the Calvinist view of the atonement, this passage would pose no problem to solve. Calvinists just cannot allow Scripture to say what it seems to be saying. If they did, Calvinism would be indefensible. Albert Barnes says: The only arguments to show that it refers to God the Father would be, (1) that the word used here . is not the usual term . by which the Lord Jesus is designated in the New Testament; and (2) that the admission that it refers to the Lord Jesus would lead inevitably to the conclusion that some will perish for whom Christ died. That it does, however, refer to the Lord Jesus, seems to me to be plain from the following considerations: (1) It is the obvious interpretation; that which would be given by the great mass of Christians, and about which there could never have been any hesitancy if it had not been supposed that it would lead to the doctrine of general atonement.300 In other words, the Calvinist cannot accept what the text plainly says because it is believed by the Calvinist to contradict the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinists can defend their position on limited atonement only because they are so willing to bend what Scripture says to conform to Reformed Theology. Even with all the bending they are willing to do, they still cannot make it work for some passages like 2 Peter 2:1. Nevertheless, while drawing his listeners’ attention to the person of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist said:
Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29) A Calvinist reading of this verse could be, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world of the elect!” But, Calvin said of this verse that John the Baptist:
... Uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin OF THE WORLD, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him.
John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith. Besides, he lays down but one method of taking away sins .
I own, indeed, that all the spurious rites of a propitiatory nature drew their existence from a holy origin, which was, that God had appointed the sacrifices which directed men to Christ; but yet every man contrived for himself his own method of appeasing God. But John leads us back to Christ alone, and informs us that there is no other way in which God is reconciled to us than through his agency, because he alone takes away sin. He therefore leaves no other refuge for sinners than to flee to Christ; by which he overturns all satisfactions, and purifications, and redemptions, that are invented by men .301
Statements like this encourage some four-point Calvinists to argue that Calvin did not teach or believe in limited atonement. If Calvin did believe in unlimited atonement, which I am not convinced he did, it would not help the reprobate sinner, according to Calvinism. For Calvin also taught that God has no real saving interest in the reprobate. Assuming unconditional election to be true, unlimited atonement would simply be the ultimate tease for the reprobate. Most Calvinists, however, cannot leave this verse as it is. They must see Christ as the Lamb of God who really only takes away the sin of His elect sheep. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul tells us:
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19)
MacArthur says: The word “world” should not be interpreted in any universalistic sense, which would say that everyone will be saved, or even potentially reconciled.302
Why shouldn’t the word “world” be interpreted to mean that anyone can “be potentially reconciled”? It is because this would be to deny Reformed Theology in general and limited atonement in particular. This is another way of saying that the plight of some sinners, which is all of the reprobate sinners, is so miserable and hopeless that they are beyond the saving love, grace, and reach of God. If the Calvinist is right, this could and perhaps should be rendered, God was in Christ reconciling the elect of the world to Himself. It is the position of the apostle John that:
... the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14) A Calvinist-corrected reading would be, the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the elect of the world. For the Calvinist, whenever the word “world” is used in reference to the saving interest or work of God, it must always mean some of the world and must never mean all of the world. The apostle Paul also tells us:
... Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6) To be consistent with Calvinism, Paul could or maybe even should have said that Christ died only for the ungodly elect. For no matter who Scripture says Christ died for, limited atonement forces the Calvinist to add the limiting word elect (in their thinking and theology) to that person or group. Despite the fact that Spurgeon held to limited atonement, he nevertheless rightly (but inconsistently) argues:
Self-righteousness is a folly, and despair is a crime, since Christ died for the ungodly. None are excluded hence but those who do themselves exclude; this great gate is set so wide open that the very worst of men may enter, and you, dear hearer, may enter now.303
If Christ did not die for all of the ungodly, as Spurgeon believes, then by virtue of this fact alone, Spurgeon should also believe that some were excluded by God and were not simply excluding themselves. Instead of “you, dear hearer, may enter now,” Spurgeon could also say “you, dear hearer, may not enter now or ever.”
WHAT DOES GOD DESIRE?
Earlier we considered the scriptural affirmation, which says:
... God our Savior ... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
We discussed this verse in our focus on unconditional election. Let us now look at this verse and its immediate context relative to limited atonement. Notice that just a few verses earlier Paul wrote: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. ... (1 Timothy 1:15)
I take this to mean that if you are a sinner, He came to save you. The reason that the apostle Paul can say with such confidence that God desires to save all men and to have all men come to the knowledge of the truth is even more devastating to the notion of limited atonement. That is, as we have already seen, he can say this because:
There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all. (1 Timothy 2:5-6 emphasis added)
Paul says that Christ, the only Mediator, mediated for all. If as every Calvinist would agree, Christ did His primary and most important mediating work on the cross, then it follows that what He did on the cross (to give Himself as a ransom), He did for all sinners. Notice also that this teaching about our Lord’s mediating work, which paid the ransom for all, is mentioned immediately after Paul tells us about God’s desire to save all men. God’s intentions toward all sinners could not be stated more clearly. Why can’t the Calvinist see this? The Calvinist view is necessarily distorted by insisting that all must mean some whenever it refers to the saving interest, purpose, and work of God. To allow even one all to mean an unqualified all when referring to the saving interest and work of God, would bring the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement to its logical knees. Like all other distinctive doctrines of Calvinism, limited atonement is not affirmed because it is clearly taught in Scripture but because it logically follows some other assumption of Calvinism. Concerning the history of the doctrine of limited atonement, Godfrey explains: This view emerged clearly among the followers of Augustine as a consequence of his teaching on sovereign, particular grace in salvation. . John Calvin did not explicitly teach the doctrine, but it seems implicit in his work. His successors made it explicit and made it part of the Reformed confessional in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith.304
It is fair to ask: if limited atonement follows so clearly from the doctrine of unconditional election, as I agree it does, and if it is also clearly taught from Scripture, as Calvinists since the Synod of Dort contend, why does Calvin not just come right out and teach this doctrine? Perhaps A. A. Hodge, as convinced as anyone of limited atonement could be, has the answer. Hodge says:
... Let the fact be well noted ... that Calvin does not appear to have given the question we are at present discussing a deliberate consideration, and has certainly not left behind him a clear and consistent statement of his views.305 Still, White is right when he says:
It makes no sense for Christ to offer atonement for those the Father does not entrust to Him for salvation. Obviously, a person who does not believe the Father entrusts a particular people (the elect) to the Son has no reason to believe in particular redemption.306 For White, then, if you do not believe in the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, you have no reason to believe in the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. Conversely, to White, if you believe Christ died for all sinners, then you have no reason to believe in the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. I have no argument with his logic, only with the truthfulness of his premise. Remember the admission of Crenshaw:
Some have said ... nowhere does scripture say that Christ did not die for the reprobate or that He died only for the elect. This is true .307 Remember also what Calvin said:
It is no small matter to have the souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ.308
Earlier, I said that Sproul speaks for most Calvinists when he says in reference to the word “world” in John 3:16 : The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation).309 I then followed this quote with another quote from Palmer who reasons:
Because God has so loved certain ones ... these particular ones will be saved, He sent His Son to die for them, to save them, and not all of the world.310
While it is true that these statements represent Calvinism, insofar as the bottom line is concerned, they still pose serious problems for many Calvinists. That is, while no Calvinist that believes in limited atonement can allow for the word “world” in John 3:16 to really mean that everyone in the world can potentially be saved, the way Sproul and Palmer handle this verse is objected to by many Calvinists, including MacArthur. MacArthur and many others believe that the world in this instance really does include everyone. It does, according to MacArthur, imply that everyone is loved and not just the elect. It cannot, however, mean that everyone in the world is loved with a redemptive love, according to MacArthur. Concerning John 3:16, he argues:
Those who approach this passage determined to suggest that it limits God’s love miss the entire point. There is no delimiting language anywhere in the context. It has nothing to do with how God’s love is distributed between the elect and the rest of the world. It is a statement about God’s demeanor toward mankind in general.
It is a declaration of good news, and its point is to say that Christ came into the world on a mission of salvation, not a mission of condemnation.311
What good does the “demeanor” of God do for those who are not redemptively loved by God? Can we really reduce the powerful and precious implication of this passage to a question of God’s demeanor toward the world in general? How can this be? If the love referred to is for the entire world and not just the elect of the world, and if the good in the good news has any relationship to that love with which God loves the world, then it would follow that the message of salvation would be for all in the world and not just the elect of the world. If Calvinism is true, however, the news is not good for any but the elect, because He only savingly loves the elect. The fact that Christ did not come to condemn the world is of no comfort or good to the reprobate because they must remain in the condemnation to which they were assigned, unconditionally, by God from all eternity to all eternity.
Suppose I were to say to an absolute pauper: Do not worry, I have not come to take away your money. The pauper would be excused for saying:
Big deal, I have no money for you to take from me. Even so, is it not reasonable for the reprobate to say to Christ (assuming Calvinism is true): So what that You did not come to condemn me? I am already condemned and must remain condemned for all eternity. What good could there be in Your incarnation and crucifixion, as far as my plight is concerned? At best, a limited atonement strips the gospel of the good that it contains for untold millions. Fortunately, it only does so in the minds and hearts of the consistent Calvinists.
Remember:
There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2, NIV) God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19) [Jesus is] the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29) Jesus ... suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9, NIV) We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) The message or “gospel” of Calvinism is not even potentially good for a large number of people. For these same people it is outright bad news. If the message we preach to a man has no good in it and if it has nothing but bad in it, how can we call it “Good News”?